linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/14] Small step toward KSM for file back page.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20201007144835.GA3471400@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Oct 2020 10:48:35 -0400
From:   Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/14] Small step toward KSM for file back page.

On Wed, Oct 07, 2020 at 04:20:13AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 06, 2020 at 09:05:49PM -0400, jglisse@...hat.com wrote:
> > The present patchset just add mapping argument to the various vfs call-
> > backs. It does not make use of that new parameter to avoid regression.
> > I am posting this whole things as small contain patchset as it is rather
> > big and i would like to make progress step by step.
> 
> Well, that's the problem.  This patch set is gigantic and unreviewable.
> And it has no benefits.  The idea you present here was discussed at
> LSFMM in Utah and I recall absolutely nobody being in favour of it.
> You claim many wonderful features will be unlocked by this, but I think
> they can all be achieved without doing any of this very disruptive work.

You have any ideas on how to achieve them without such change ? I will
be more than happy for a simpler solution but i fail to see how you can
work around the need for a pointer inside struct page. Given struct
page can not grow it means you need to be able to overload one of the
existing field, at least i do not see any otherway.

Cheers,
Jérôme